Business/Corporate

Where a defendant corporation has moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff qualifies as an employee, the motion must be allowed given the plaintiff’s independent contractor status.

Where (1) the estate of a construction worker who died during the collapse of a mast-climbing platform brought suit against the manufacturer of the platform and (2) the manufacturer then filed a third-party complaint against the masonry contractor that employed the worker and paid workers’ compensation benefits to his estate, a Superior Court judge properly applied the law in finding the manufacturer not to be entitled to common-law or contractual indemnification from the employer.

Where a plaintiff has alleged securities fraud on the part of a defendant corporation and two codefendant executives, the plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to show that the defendants knowingly made any false or misleading statements.

Where (1) a subcontractor engaged a plaintiff to provide labor for the installation of doors and hardware as part of the renovation and restoration of the John W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse in Boston and (2) claiming nonpayment, the plaintiff has brought suit against the defendant general contractor and its codefendant surety, a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants must be denied as to the plaintiff’s quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

Where a plaintiff relator has alleged that the defendant company violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729, by inducing the government to reimburse it for artificially inflated bonuses to executives, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment because the relator has not identified a genuine issue of fact to support the essential proposition that the defendant acted with the requisite knowledge of falsity.

Where defendants, charged with violating the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act by making misrepresentations in connection with the plaintiff’s purchase of mortgage-backed securities, has moved to compel production of a pretrial forensic review commissioned by the plaintiff, the motion should be denied, as the plaintiff’s reliance on the forensic review as the basis for much of its complaint does not constitute a waiver of the privilege attached to the review.

Where a U.S. District Court judge has granted a plaintiff corporation’s request for a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-solicitation clause against the defendant former employee, the ruling should be affirmed despite the defendant’s assertion that the clause is unenforceable with respect to clients who made “first contact” with him.